Wright, Peter C., Fields, Robert E., & Harrison, Michael D. (2000) Analyzing Human Computer Interaction as Distributed Cognition: The Resources Model. Human-Computer Interaction, 2000, Volume 15, pp. 1-41
Wright, Fields, and Harrison (2000) present an approach to distributed cognition (DC) and human-computer interactions (HCI) based on a resource model. Using a limited set of information structures and a description of an interaction strategy, they report on a way to categorize the relationships between the different configurations possible between users and their actions within a context through how resources are used. Positioning this approach as a connection between both fields, DC and HCI, they report on how, while HCI is frequently studied, DC concepts are not often applied to interaction settings and are rarely found used directly in HCI studies.
Specific to their model are five information structures for analyzing interactions: Plans, Goals, Possibilities, History, Action-effect relations, and States (p. 14). These information structures can be “externally in the interface; internally in the head of the user; or, more often, distributed across the two” (p. 16). Based on a cyclic model of feedback between systems, Wright, Fields, and Harrison (2000) build on the work done by Monk (1999). They describe the cyclic mode “in the sense that action is informed by the configuration of resources represented in the interaction at any particular time, either externally in the interface or internally in the head of the user. When an action is taken, the configuration of resources is changed” (p. 18).
The second aspect of the resources model is the interaction strategy. Wright, Fields, and Harrison (2000) define this term as the “different ways in which resources can be used to make decisions about action” (p. 19). Interaction strategies include Plan Following, Plan Construction, Goal Matching, and History-Based Selection and Elimination (p. 19 – 21). For each, Wright, Fields, and Harrison (2000) incorporate examples as well as visual representations of their variations and how strategies can differ between actions.
Reiterating in their conclusion the need for the inclusion of actions within DC models, Wright, Fields, and Harrison (2000) write of the disclaimer that, while they use the term “model” throughout the article, they do not want to present the case for completeness. While they stress the model is useful, it is not closed, nor should it be seen as such when used for future analysis.